Andrew Pitman cries poor and rich, says climate science is certain, but is new and “changing”

…climate scientists are losing the fight with climate sceptics. That the sceptics are so well funded, so well organized, have nothing else to do, they kind of don’t have day jobs, they can put all of their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science to the public, whereas the climate scientists have day jobs and this isn’t one of them. All of the efforts you do in an IPCC report is done out of hours, voluntarily, for no funding and no pay, whereas the sceptics are being funded to put out full scale misinformation campaigns…”

Tom Nelson caught him telling prospective students in the Adelaide Advertiser that they ought to rush to study climate science so they can get paid well, be political activists, and change our understanding of the climate.

Almost invariably, climate PhDs with a physics or maths background find themselves in demand overseas and with excellent salary packages,” he said. ”This is a growing area with a small number of such specialists, making them an elite that are coming in at the ground floor of a worldwide demand, so it is a great way to fast-track a career.”

I rather scathingly explained the 7 errors in Pitmans paragraph last year. (Skeptics are unfunded, with no salary packages, no PR team, no UN department, and little support, yet can name hundreds of studies to support them. Pitman probably gets close to $200k a year for being a professor, yet despite the high salary, makes unscientific ad hom attacks that are unworthy of a grad student, and can’t provide empirical evidence to support his models).

So much for volunteering, he received $60k in grants to attend IPCC events.

But what’s the story with the “new” field of climate science? I thought the science was settled? You mean there are things we don’t know?

Climate systems researchers have the chance ”to pursue some very serious science that will significantly affect policy and – because the field is so new – change our fundamental understanding of climate”.

Well that’s alright then. The only part of climate science up for grabs is the fundamental understanding part. (@#$!)

If the science was settled, he’d be giving the students a bum steer. The students though seem to have a pretty good grip on the future prospects of climate researchers:

The director of the university’s Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Professor John Crawford, said market research showed young people were greatly concerned about the environment but ”for reasons we don’t fully understand, it’s difficult to recruit students” ‘For every graduate that comes out of Sydney University there’s about three jobs, and pretty well-paid jobs,” he said. ”There’s no shortage of opportunities; we just have a shortage of students…”

And silly me, but I thought the job of scientists was to unravel the mysteries of the universe, not to “affect policies”. It used to be that people who wanted to affect climate policies became Greenpeace activists. But now, Climate scientist-Greenpeace activists — What’s the difference? They both write reports for the IPCC.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait...

Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)

Andrew Pitman cries poor and rich, says climate science is certain, but is new and "changing", 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

115 comments to Andrew Pitman cries poor and rich, says climate science is certain, but is new and “changing”

“It used to be that people who wanted to affect climate policies became Greenpeace activists. But now, climate scientist-Greenpeace activists — What’s the difference? They both write reports for the IPCC.”

Their problem is that if the science is settled, then we don’t need any more climate scientists i.e. their gravy train runs out of steam. On the other hand, if the fundamental science changes, then it raises doubts about all the other ex cathedra comments by the demi-gods of climate science. So their only way out is to keep the original conclusions but reframe them in a new way – e.g. “It’s worse than we thought!!!”

The director of the university’s Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Professor John Crawford, said market research showed young people were greatly concerned about the environment but ”for reasons we don’t fully understand, it’s difficult to recruit students” ‘For every graduate that comes out of Sydney University there’s about three jobs, and pretty well-paid jobs,” he said. ”There’s no shortage of opportunities; we just have a shortage of students…”

Perhaps the students have higher ideals than becoming Greenpeace activists, while those that don’t, don’t need a degree to.

There’s no shortage of opportunities; we just have a shortage of students…

I bet they do. In my current day job engagement (yes, I admit it, I am a skeptic, and I am funded, and so ashamed … not!), I am working with a group of undergrad students who are earning some money doing some very boring and manual research for us.

I was surprised by these people:

1) They knew all about the Convoy of No Confidence – it was all over twitter;

2) They were reasonably well informed about the science – as one woman said, they “know the difference between the missing Hot-spot and the elusive G-spot”, to much hilarity from the other women in the group;

3) They were Informed enough to see that, “AGW – Alarmism Generates Wealth”, is a money and power grab – by scientists as a group (rather than politicians, as a group, which is interesting);

4) They see the politicians as being no more than useful idiots; and

5) They can recognise and decode PR spin at a frightening speed (frightening to me, because I may be out of a job soon).

It looks as though the students are smarter than the teachers. It would not be the first time that has happened.

It’s an interesting perspective… as you say, if the science is settled, why are these people still being funded? Surely they have nothing else to offer society. Time to move into a useful vocation such as putting the bristles into toothbrushes perhaps…

He got free air time on ABC 666 Canberra yesterday saying climate scientists were well paid in Australia but many were going overseas to avoid $20,000 HEX debt. I rang in to ask why if the jobs were so well paid was such a small debt so important. They did not put me to air. One who was pointed out he had paid off his HEX debt and another asked why they were trying to skive out of their obligations. Pittman is of course on record having said if all human activity ceased it would take twenty to thirty years for temperatures to drop. Flannery the Climate Commissioner has said a thousand. I thought the science was settled I am not sure if Pittman (A geographer if I remmember correctly) has beach front property like Flannery and Kate Blanchett

When you look at the Curricula for US Universities “Climate Science” courses you will find that they have a very heavy loading towards “Environmental” science and very little in the way or core sciences.

In Australian Universities there are now separate faculties of “Climate Change Studies” which exist independently of real science and engineering in the real world.

The purpose of these Environmental Science Departments in our Universities was clearly illustrated by the head of one such unit who did has duty when Kev the Sequestrator was about to leave for Copenhagen.

He came out publicly to talk up the dangers of CO2 and to wish Kev Godspeed.

So I looked up his funding — very interesting — but not very scientific and obviously a political arm of the Federal Government.

Has Pittman ever thought that the reason that they can’t get students is because most are skeptical of CAGW and know that such views by them would not be tolerated by their professors (ie. controllers)? Anyone who has true scientific leanings wouldn’t be caught dead being a mere NGO advocate and UN mouthpiece. That’s also why the mythical 97% number would not amaze anyone, since those who hold other than the hive mind position would have been weeded out long before graduation.

I’ve found that if you only supply a link to a climate realist site they always ALWAYS just denigrate the person providing the information. But when you throw in an actual .GOV link to the White House they shut up and you generally do not get another peep from them concerning this funding topic.

Our tax money is buying them the most expensive consensus anyone could imagine…

Further to my post above.
Recently not so shocked when my daughter, studying at uni, was told that history is a social and political construct. Silly me, I always thought that history was re-evaluated on the basis of new contrary EVIDENCE but apparently not. This is changed according to whim of whoever may be in power at any time. Then to add insult to injury, this term she is doing science, and guess what. This paragon of scientific virtue, a professor no less, explained to his students that “Science is a social and political construct”!!!! Excuse my French, but WTF??? This demonstrates to me that all aspects of tertiary education has been contaminated by our political masters. How are we meant to defeat this sort of “thinking”? My only consolation was hearing my nephew studying the same course, just graduated in fact, who said no one believed this but arguing with them was a guaranteed Fail, and so it was easier to just let such garbage go through to the teacher.

RW @ 6. Am I correct to assume your students are Kiwis ? If so this statement is interesting.

1) They new all about the Convoy of No Confidence – it was all over twitter;

The ALP MPs and Brown who mocked the Convoy as being a flop because of the supposed small numbers better get up to speed very quickly with the new media to realize that waving thousands of placards alone does not “cut the mustard” any more. The word spreads wider and quicker than any ABC PR spin.

Climate systems researchers have the chance ”to pursue some very serious science that will significantly affect policy and – because the field is so new – change our fundamental understanding of climate”. – Andy Pittman

I guess the old perfectly understood climate science was not so perfectly understood then — you know, the one that was all settled a long time ago and about which Al Gore was so sure that he bought a bunch of seashore property in the danger zone for all the sea level rise that was to have started by now?

Or maybe we’re talking about some other branch of science? Maybe? Ya think?

Could he mean climbing science and just can’t spel it? Seems like he’s been a climber up the wannabe ladder for a long time now. Surely that must be it. What else could it be?

The WWF were exposed last night on SBS, responsible for the murder,rape and dislocation of many Africans, moving them off their homelands to set up parks. Mega Fauna are more important than people. #

Conservation’s Dirty Secrets
Reporter Oliver Steeds travels the globe to investigate the conservation movement and its major organisations. Steeds finds that the movement, far from stemming the tide of extinction that’s engulfing the planet, has got some of its conservation priorities wrong. The film examines the way the big conservation charities are run. It questions why some work with polluting big businesses to raise money and are alienating the very people they would need to stem the loss of species from earth. (From the UK) (Documentary) PG CC

I’m not sure why they need degrees and lengthy expensive university courses in climate science.

The whole gravytrain shebang rests on the following simple premise…..

/start climate science.
* Some Swedish bigoted racist scientist tested the gas CO2 and claimed CO2 traps heat and therefore is a warming greenhouse gas.
* We pump gazillions of tonnes of the stuff into the atmosphere, therefore we are warming the world. /end climate science

If you’ve read and understood the above and can repeat it in a test, get in line for your climate science degree and go out into the adult world and make ooodles of money.

What’s that? There’s more to the science than that? Sure there is, but it’s all made up personal opinions without a shred of real scientific evidence. So as a graduate on the public teat, you too will learn to make things up; the more alarming and scary the better.

But of course, if you are concerned about self esteem, integrity and honesty, and you truly wish to contribute to humankind, you’ll probably run a million miles away from climate science.

the monies paid to pitman is peanuts compared to the ETS, which is proceeding virtually unnoticed by anti-carbon tax campaigners. nothing by Bolt about the CFI. only ABC and a news.com.au piece from the MSM on the Bill being passed and headed for rubber-stamping in the House of Reps, yet:

23 Aug: Big Pond News: AAP: Coalition to keep carbon farming
The federal coalition has found something amongst the government’s climate change initiatives that it won’t overturn: carbon farming…
Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said his party supported the intention of the bills but believed the program was not yet ready to be implemented…
But said the coalition would not abolish the carbon farming scheme…
‘I think it’s important to give this message to potential actors and investers in the space.’…http://bigpondnews.com/articles/National-Rural/2011/08/23/Coalition_to_keep_carbon_farming_653429.html

so on the very same day the Convoy was in Canberra, and Coalition pollies were pledging support for the protesters’ concerns, this bill was passed, without requiring Coalition votes, yet the Coalition is on board too!

even the Greens had serious concerns about the CFI yet they voted for it! they even admitted in their comment on the bill that “there was no proposition at the time for either Labor or the Coalition to introduce a price on carbon emissions prior to 2013″:

30 May 2011: aph.gov: Additional Comment from the Australian Greens
The Carbon Farming Initiative was announced in August 2010, just prior to the federal election. At the time it was an attempt to address the vacuum created when the Greenhouse Friendly scheme ended in July, leaving businesses in the voluntary carbon offset markets in limbo.
The announcement included very little detail about the scheme, and there was no proposition at the time for either Labor or the Coalition to introduce a price on carbon emissions prior to 2013…
After the 2010 election the Greens signed an agreement with Prime Minister Gillard to provide her Government with confidence and supply, in return for a number of measures including setting up a multi-party committee to deliver a carbon price mechanism in this term of Government. Subsequently the Government decided to expand the role the CFI by linking it to emissions trading much earlier than had been anticipated.
The complexity of linking the CFI with a hybrid carbon price model which starts with a fixed price phase is significant.
However without the Carbon Farming Initiative being in place, there is no mechanism for creating carbon credits from the landscape and a lost
opportunity for biodiversity enhancement and for rural Australia.
There is a problem from the Greens perspective with land planning. The CFI relies to a large extent on local and state Government laws pertaining to land use planning, however, as demonstrated by the perverse impacts created by the Managed Investment Scheme fiasco, either these laws or their implementation are inadequate.
While the Greens recognise the importance of the positive and negative lists in mitigating this problem, we remain concerned that there is the potential for perverse outcomes…http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ec_ctte/carbon_farming/report/d02.h

how quickly this Bill was dealt with, and Turnbull had basically the same scheme:

aph.govt.au: 1.1 On 25 March 2011, the Senate referred the provisions of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, the Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 and the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011 (the bills) to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 May 2011…
1.85 On 24 January 2009, the then Leader of the Opposition the Hon Mr
Malcolm Turnbull MP announced the Coalition’s plan for a ‘Green Carbon
Initiative’, a scheme similar to the CFI, comprising:
…commitments to restore soil carbon through better land management; to invest heavily in the revegetation and reforestation of the Australian landscape; and to pursue sequestration of large quantities of carbon via biochar.[101]
1.86 Mr Turnbull estimated the Green Carbon Initiative would achieve
‘additional annual reductions of at least 150 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent’ by 2020.[102]http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/ec_ctte/carbon_farming/report/c01.htm

24 Aug: Northwest Star, Mt. Isa: Hayley Sorenson: Devil in detail of carbon farming plan
Councillor Wharton said increased vegetation could cause problems in the bushfire season.
“The big issue is going to be fire,” he said.
“If you don’t manage your country and it becomes a huge infestation of fuel and November comes along and you get a lightning strike the whole lot is going to go up.”
AgForce policy director Drew Wagner echoed Cr Wharton’s concerns.
He said the agricultural lobby group supported the initiative so long as it did not jeopardise Australia’s food security.
“AgForce is supportive of something that enables landholders to play an active role in environmental management but we are cautious as the principle of this intitiative will involve large scale removal of agricultural infrastructure,” he said.
“We can’t afford to lose our food and our farming capacity.”
Mr Wagner said just what benefits would be available to graziers who participate in the scheme were as yet unclear….
“The devil is still very much in the detail.”…http://www.northweststar.com.au/news/local/news/general/devil-in-detail-of-carbon-farming-plan/2267934.aspx

I watched the show and the one question that occured to me about 15 min in, when it became quite clear that the show was critical of the conservation movement was “How did this get past the demogods at SBS who decide what we should see?” I was a little disappointed that there is so much more to this story that should be exposed but expect that no further funding will be garnered in the UK for follow up episodes.

A couple of good pionts made were:-
1) Conservation is best achieved and most effective at the local level. I well remember during my time studying, spending weekends at a local nursery helping propagate local native species that were to be used by Landcare in their riverbank reclaimation project. And subsequently participating in the planting and invasive species removal aspects of the project when time allowed. Back then there was no politics involved, no advocacy, simply Uni Students, conservationsits, farmers and members of the local community concerned about the degradation of the water table, quality of the water in the river and land degradation through erosion and salinity getting together to actually acheive a positive outcome.
2) The success of local actions with the people directly effected by the environment is inversly proportional to the relevance and future prospects of the environmental NGO’s, ie, the more succesful local actions are, the less relevant NGO’s and Green political organisations become and the less secure become the tenure and funding for their academic supporters. Hence why seeming to be concerned about the planet trumps on the ground direct action.

I thought the better of saying this earlier but time has a way of allowing for better judgment.

I taught college part time for 17 years along with keeping my own career going. And looking at you I can only say that you are a disgrace to the very concept of a University. You disgrace the title you hold as well.

Do you think we’re all so stupid that we won’t remember what you said last week, last month or last year? Do you think that if we do remember we can be bamboozled like so many were when Bill Clinton’s weaseling apologists said the lying was just about sex and therefore it didn’t count. Or worse, it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

Now, lest you think that because you live in Australia and I live in the United States I have no right to say these things, let me tell you why you are wrong. You see, the poison you spew pollutes the water clear over here, half a world away. And by the way, our own poisoning of the academic waters spreads to you also. It’s one gigantic mess worldwide. You are in the company of many scoundrels like yourself. You are not the only one deserving of these words by any means.

As one who taught college students for so long I can only say you are a man I would never want to be associated with. You and everything you represent thoroughly disgusts me.

You should be ashamed but you evidently think yourself too invincible to worry about any comeuppance. Times, however, seem to be changing.

I will be glad to respond if you want to answer me here on this thread. I expect that your hostess, Joanne Nova would also be glad to read what you have to say.

Of course there is a lot of work in climate science. Just predicting 2 – 4.5 degrees warming for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is a very broad brush approach. And even there, it would be good to pin it down to a narrower range.

There is so much more to ask. How will we get to this warmer future? What will the effects be in a particular region? What should we expect from rainfall, snowfall, storms etc? How will crops, weeds, pests, animals, fish, trees etc be affected?

When you think how important weather and climate are to our future, we should be trying to understand them better – AGW or no AGW. In a world of 2 billion people, it maybe doesn’t matter so much, but when we are 6 billion, heading for 9 billion, there is not much wiggle room. We need to make good decisions based on good science if we don’t want major famines in the next 100 years.

So yes, lets train climate scientists, as they will be an important part of our future. The alternative, as promulgated by the right, is a descent into ignorance, where climate science is ridiculed, and intelligent design is treated as equal to evolution.

We’re supposed to trust the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because much of the research on which it relies was published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
But what happens when the people who are in charge of these journals are the same ones who write IPCC reports?

Today’s exhibit is the Journal of Climate. It’s published by the American Meteorological Society – which certainly sounds reputable. But let’s take a look at its IPCC connections.

Editor Andrew Pitman was an IPCC lead author, a contributing author, and an expert reviewer for the 2007 edition. Moreover, he’s involved in the upcoming report as a review editor.

And let’s not even talk about what percentage of the published papers authored by some of those mentioned above earned their peer-reviewed status via the Journal of Climate.

I have a theory that, encouraged by groupthink pushed in the secondary education system, more than half the environmental and climate science establishment are activists who decided to go to university and get a degree so they could become warriors for the cause. So much for “science” and love of scientific process. My theory goes a long way towards explaining why so much of the climate science adopted and irrationally protected by the IPCC monopoly is so poor and why evidence, observation and empiricism have been thrown out the window. Unlike the IPCC’s CAGW zombies like Andy Pitman, I’m not attached to my hypothesis; I’m interested in the truth.

My number is a long term value based on the CET whereas the other two are short term ones. Pleasingly close, and that without need for a supercomputer. Unfortunately my value is not peer reviewed although the others are, even if they stooped to using NASA satellite instruments.

On the other hand if you want to replicate my calcs here’s how:

Put the CET annual averages onto a spreadsheet, convert to anomalies using the baseline period (1960-1990 or etc).
Add the Mauna Loa pCO2 data, curve fit an EXP function and back calculate to fill in all the values to the start of the CET dataset assuming 280 ppm as the preindustrial value.
Add the previous solar cycle lengths from DMI (this needs some spreadsheet knowledge to render the correct previous solar cycle lengths to the next cycles years – or you can type in the values by hand).
Use these with the slope from Butler & Johnston 1996 to calculate the solar driven temperature anomaly from the start of the dataset.
Linest the solar driven temperature.
Linest the CET.
Now include a 2XCO2 exponential using a variable X, where X is 2XCO2 (you have to do some algebra to get this).
Add this to the calculated solar driven temperature anomaly, add a Linest, then goalseek 2XCO2 to get this calculated regression slope to equal to the actual CET slope. And you get a 2XCO2 of 0.8 C. Neat, eh?

If you add a component to model the PDO effect, this drops it down to 0.7 C because the PDO temperature effect was at peak in 2005, at the end of the dataset.

B&J 1996 is an empirical fit for Armagh in Nthn Ireland which is geographically quite similar to the CET triangle, so its reasonable to use for this exercise. I admit to using the data only from 1756 onwards because the Maunder Minimum screws things up and the early values for pSCL are rougher.

Of course I could also add stuff for UHIE and volcanoes, but hey life’s short and they’re not going to get the 2XCO2 up anywhere near the IPCC range, especially since they counteract each other.

So, how did you say the IPCC got its 2-4.5 C range again? Was it using several $billions and a computer slightly better than my aged arthritic laptop? Or was it by direct measurement using a $billion satellite?

Sorry mate to give you a hard time, but the moral of this tale is yes, you can check the veracity of IPCC numbers yourself if you want, and you’ll find they ain’t good.

Maybe, maybe not. You see Craig Thomson, “The Minister For Horizontal Services” is a protected species, due to the unconditional backing and support of our appointed Prime Minister. Appointed by Mr’s Whinger, Bigshott & Bendt who have on every occasion voted against either The Minister for Horizontal Srevices or The Appointed Prime Minister providing Statements to the House on the various issues around the use of Craig Thomsons Corporate Credit Card whilst he was National Secretary (not just a normal Secretary as the ALPBC and SBS would have us believe, but the highest administrative position within the organisation)of the Health Services Union.

I find it strange that Mr’s Whinger, Bigshott and Bendt, who when forming the cabal that passes for our government talked about a “New Paradgim” where the “Sun will shine” on our Parliament and would herald a new era of open accountable governance where the integrity of Government is paramount.

Well folks, here is the perfect example of the quality of Paliamentarians in this country. The Right Honourable, John Murphy (ALP), The Member for Reid is currently speaking on a MPI in our Parliament. He reckons the ALP/Greens/Independent Carbon Dioxide tax is a good thing because it makes renewable, clean, healthy energy production a more economically viable option. Now what is interesting is his rationalisation as he has personally witnessed a project that could have applications here in Aust, in action in the US and lamenting the lack of support the proponents of this “solution” got from thr previous Howard Government. He goes on to describe how he has witnessed the project that has seen three large bidirectional wind turbines immersed in the East River in New York (not exactly wind turbines then are they) and how these turbines are providing constant power for…. wait for it…. a 6 storey carpark & a delicatesen. I wonder if it isn’t too much for the Right Honourable Idiot, if he could calculate just how many of these turbines would be needed to power New York, and if he has any concept of the damage these structures would do to the river and esturine ecosystems in which he would have these savious of the planet installed.

When you think how important weather and climate are to our future, we should be trying to understand them better – AGW or no AGW.

John your posts are getting better and better, I mean that really.
On this occasion, though you are correct, you have forgotten reality. Here; let me demonstrate…

How will we get to this warmer future?

We’ll get there by taxing every industrial activity known to man and sending large chunks of it to the unelected beurocrats of the UN.

What will the effects be in a particular region?

According to the settled science of the IPCC AR4, ALL EFFECTS are bad and or catastrophic for all regions. If there is a region that may just per chance possibly maybe receive a tiny minisicule imperceptible benefit of no real consequence, the AR4 doesn’t mention it in their synthesis report or summaries.

What should we expect from rainfall,

More of it, much more of it in less time in areas that already receive lots of rain now.
Less of it, much much less of it in areas that hardly get any rain now. Areas that are affected by cyclical drought will get more severe more frequent drought. Dams will dry out.

snowfall,

In the future, kids won’t know what snow looks like. However in some areas, though snow fall will reduce, there will be years when snow will be so heavy and deep, it’ll cause catastrophic disruption and kill people. That’s what AGW does.

storms etc?

Oh!! heavy storms, more deadly and destructive and costly storms. We have over 95% confidence of that.

How will crops, weeds, pests, animals, fish, trees etc be affected?

They are being affected now. Many species are migrating to higher lattitudes and altitutes. Many species are on the verge of extinction because of 0.7DegC of warming. 2-5DegC will wipe them out. With the exception of weeds and pests. These species love it warmer and will thrive in all lattitudes and altitutes. They are forming resistance to pesticides and herbicides and will colonise all productive lands, of that we are 90% confident.

So you see John, there is no point a youngster of 17-18 yrs of age going into climate science. The gold standard of climate science, the bible of climate science if you will, does not see any benefit* whatsoever for any living species from a warming world. Not a single peer reviewed paper has been published in any REPUTABLE scientific journal espousing the benefits of a warming world. A budding climate scientist has NO HOPE or chance of any breakthrough research. All they can do is tweak the degree of species lost here or there, publish a paper that corrects the 8 metres per year migration to say 11.3 metres or adjust the rate of ice loss by a few percentage points here or there.

Why would a budding scientist choose a settled science, when there is a whole universe of undiscovered gems in fields such a microbiology, genetics, DNA research etc etc.

* The IPCC AR4 does state in a small section that red wine will benefit (not in all regions) from a warming world by having a higher alcohol content and being more flavoursome. Though a recent peer reviewed paper in a reputable journal debunked that by finding the wine making regions of France would suffer. So alas, the one and only benefit for mankind in a warming world has been debunked and will be corrected in the upcoming AR5.

…arguing with them was a guaranteed Fail, and so it was easier to just let such garbage go through to the teacher.

Incredible. Just humour the teachers. Where our kinds need to be smarter than the teachers. Sounds like the kids need some education before being allowed anywhere near the school, just to protect them from such nonsense.

I have just checked Twitter, and it has calmed down (well, moved on to be more precise). But two tweets caught my eye:

BREAKING: Scientists confirm US quake was caused by the convoy leaving Canberra

and

An even bigger convoy will be led by Albanese. Labor MPs will be marched out of Canberra at the next election.

As you say, the Politicians (and The Ooze) need to get up to speed with the technology. We knew about the quake in New York as it was happening! You can’t get much better than that. You just have to follow the right people

BTW, Bruce of Newcastle@39 – nice work. But central England is not the world? Given that you like this sort of thing, drop over to Tamino, and check this out. You may not agree with him, but at least you’ll appreciate what he has done.

Pitman replied to Bolt’s blog, but it is buried on page 3 of th replies, so I am taking the liberty of copying it here:

All,

thanks for your comments on Andrew bolt’s statements.

First, no lead authors receive funding for doing IPCC. They do get airfares to attend the meetings that the Australian Government (then John Howard of course) requires them to attend. Their employers maintain their usual salary and therefore bear the cost of the lead authors role.
My statments to the ABC were therefore correct. The funding has to be used directly to get to and from the meetings – no personal salary, no personal benefit. So, my statements were currect.

Second, its interesting that you can look at my whole history of research funding. Why are the funding sources for the sceptics not so easily accessible ? Because I have nothing to hide since all I do is open to scruitiny while all the sceptics are doing is hidden.

Third, you will note a lot of my funding has been to explore non greenhouse gas contributors to climate change – so I have demonstrated that its not just CO2.

Finally if you really believe the major campagns that are attempting to undermine the IPCC and the science of global warming is not very well funded, including sustained and professional lobbying in Canberra then you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Here we go again. The Gullibles (the easily persuaded) accusing the Sceptics (the thoughtful and inquiring) of having so much financial support that the gullibles are losing the argument. Science has gone out of the window. We know it has because the science has ben decided, hasn’t it ? As soon as the gullibles recognise that science is never decided but is always open to question we might get a sensible response. Money is irrelevant.

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg announced today that his main charitable organization will give $50 million over the next four years to the Sierra Club to expand the group’s campaign to retire coal-burning power plants and replace them with renewable energy. Appearing with Sierra Club President Michael Brune near a coal plant in Virginia, Bloomberg said the gift would help the organization’s Beyond Coal Campaign retire as many as a third of the nation’s oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants by 2020. Brune said the Sierra Club — which claims to have stopped construction of more than 150 new coal-fired power plants in recent years — will use the Bloomberg Philanthropies money to expand its anti-coal initiative from 15 to 45 states and to increase the staff of the Beyond Coal Campaign from 100 to 200 full-time employees.

Hey Jo, how many staff do you employ?

Brookesy is delusional. hey John, pass over whatever it is your smoking, I need some lol

The House was informed that Mr Truss (Leader of The Nationals) had proposed that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely, “The impact of the carbon tax on state and local governments”, 2:43:38 PM.

What? The question of whether the Greens’ claims about the nature of reality withstand scientific observation is not a matter of public importance?

Again, the science isn’t settled, the science is scuttled and apparently silence is consent.

What kind of a sick individual stops someone from attending the funeral of a friend?

The sort of individual who is taking advise from Press Secretaries, and “Media Advisors” (The Ooze) that can see 1001 ways in which Tony Abbot could be attacked over letting them attend. We are talking Canberra politics here – any alignment with anything resembling normality is purely coincidental.

Why, if I didn’t know better, I could almost think you were asking that question as if it were a bad thing.

Surely you are not suggesting that making donations to a third party, who is lobbying to mitigate attacks on the industry, is not beneficial?

Superannuation funds are major shareholders in the coal industry, and rely on dividends as part of their income stream. By attacking “Big Coal” you are indirectly attacking those superannuation funds, and therefore the income for all of those Grandmas and Grandpas through out the country who would loose their only form of income.

Adam Smith
If the memorial service for Margaret Olley was such a matter of National Significance why didn’t the Federal Government offer the family a National Service? Having left it to the relevant State authority, one has to question just how significant Margaret Olley was to Simon Crean as an Australian icon rather than a blunt instrument to try to beat Abbott up with.

In addition, considering that Whinger, Bigshott and Bendt have voted against every motion proposed regards Craig Thomson, the chances of them changing was nil. Anthony Sleazy said as much, ie, there was never a chance for the motion to pass. One has to wonder about the bottle of Simon Crean when he allows the actions of the Opposition Leader dictate his actions. Who would have thought that Tony Abbott is the true puppetmaster of the current government. Smells more like Crean reverting to type and using any low tactic that comes to hand to score points, “poor widdle meee, big bad Tony, said I couldn’t go to Margy’s Memorial…” Tosser.

As for Malcom in a muddle, if the matter was of such vital importance to him, he would have gone regardless of what the leader said and worn the consequences for his actions. That is unless he believed that resigning from the Liberal Party and sitting as an independent would mean the end of his political aspirations. It would appear that his own ambition outweighed his friendship with Margaret Olley if he wasn’t capable of taking such principled action…. again.

“I think the science behind the policy is contentious to say the least.”

SOURCE: ABC RADIO AM, 4 AUGUST 2009

“I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change.”

SOURCE: ABC 7.30 REPORT, 27 JULY 2009.

“It seems that, notwithstanding the dramatic increases in manmade CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world’s warming has stopped.”

SOURCE: HERALD SUN, 5 JANUARY 2010.

Of course Barney Joyce representing the National Party is also over the moon about CAGW.

Given that level of confidence by two vocal members from each party in the fast collapsing alarmist position, which should only strengthen the obviously well read Abbott’s skepticism, it is pretty hard to imagine that should the ALP suffer the defeat it appears to be heading toward in the next election that the Coalition will want to touch alarmist climate change policies with a barge pole. What its policy is now is irrelevant as it is not in government.

They are the actions of a man who is unsuited to be the Prime Minister of Australia.

You have been “spinning” so long that you have complete disequilibrium where you don’t know up from down, left from right or wrong from right. Either that or you are in a psychic fugue state, wandering around aimlessly disconnected from reality because you cannot bear to contemplate the consequences of your actions. Your world is crumbling, and the arrogance and self satisfaction you constantly display are the source of the overwhelming majority of the population wishing you and your party take a very long walk off a short pier, never to return. Life in the political wilderness will be harsh, and the time in exile may well be permanent. You cannot possibly equate preventing two politicians attending a funeral with worthiness or otherwise for the office of PM. What I would think is unfit or unworthy to hold office is exemplified by the bald faced lie the day before an election, knowing full well that she had every intention of enacting a carbon tax after the election without due regard for openly informing the people she SERVES of her intentions. One is unfit to hold the office of PM when you cover up inappropriate use of funds by a sitting member of parliament to protect your political skin. And it is especially a sign of unfitness for this high office, when the PM knowingly is racking up huge amounts of government debt in a deliberate attempt to sabotage the fiscal opportunities of the replacement Liberal government in 2013. She has transparently conceded that the party will suffer a large defeat at the next election, and is buying votes for the 2016/7 election by throwing money around to as many minority interest groups she can, knowing that the deficit blowout will limit Abbott’s options and either force him to adopt an ETS and/or maintain the MRRT because of the hole she is actively digging. Economic vandalism 101- a master class and absolutely a disgraceful tactic to compromise Australia’s fiscal health and our country’s economic security for generations to come.

[ The Coalition accepts the science, that’s why they propose cutting CO2 emissions by the same amount as the government by 2020. — Adam Smith @ 53]

The sudden downvoting of your comment is not justifiable because what you have said is supported by evidence. Hansard, Mon 22 August:

Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (14:49): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the draft Clean Energy Bill, which will require landfill managers to estimate the emissions that the rubbish they receive will emit for 30 years and then estimate the cost of those emissions for 30 years so that they can determine the price they should charge householders when next they take a load of rubbish to the tip. Can the Prime Minister explain how this is possible?

Ms GILLARD: [...]In front of people he believes are supporters of climate change denial he will get the kind of questions we have just had asked today. In front of audiences like those when he is blogging on Mamamia he will say he is in support of a minus five per cent target. But if the Leader of the Opposition genuinely believes that it is impossible to track carbon pollution he should get to the dispatch box and say he does not support a minus five per cent target. If he does support a minus five per cent target he should stop these stupid questions being asked.

Indeed. Press secretary Dullard has highlighted the obvious contradiction and ineptitude implicit in the LNP coalition’s officially stated position on CO2 emissions. There is no practical merit in arguing over precisely which configuration the deck chairs on the Titanic should be rearranged to match, whether it be by the most expensive method or the most efficient method, when the sane thing to do is to take note of the fact that the alarmist position is sinking fast in the light of new evidence and the honourable members would do well to abandon the HMAS CPRS promptly.

Your delusion is not in your characterisation of Coalition nonsense. Your delusion is that what the Coalition has accepted is the one and only source of truth called “The Science” as peddled by the IPCC and its minions in the CSIRO. There is one ultimate source of truth in science and that is repeatable observations of reality. Real observations do not support the alarmist position that industrial CO2 will cause temperatures to soar or that 2 degrees of warming would be intolerable to the biosphere. All major parties’ official positions are disconnected from the climate reality. The public has had over a decade of misinformation to similar effect which is only now wearing off.

Have you read Jo’s Skeptic Guide (both of them) and can you find any observational evidence either to disprove the null hypothesis or to support the alarmist CAGW position?

If not, then did you arrive at your present opinion by any method other than parroting uncritically the alarmist stories of the media and the green left?

Regardless of your specific answer, be assured that by seriously answering these questions you will have taken a bigger step forward than most.

The way I look at it, Abbott will force an election soon, and will win that election. The greens will have the balance of power in the senate, so Abbott will have to work with either the greens or Labor.

Malcolm Turnbull, who was also forced to miss the funeral, may not be very forgiving to Tony. In a better world, Malcolm would take over the leadership and become PM. This won’t happen, and we will suffer because of it.

Why not train students in underwater basket weaving? It would surely be more useful.

The number of times I’ve needed an underwater basket is uncountable. You’re just not seeing the big picture, Roy.

First we make people live under water where they can gather seaweed from the sea floor. Then, while underwater, they weave the seaweed into underwater baskets. Now they take their baskets back to the seaweed forests and use the baskets to gather more seaweed. Then the surplus baskets are sold internationally to corner the emerging market in 1) eco-friendly baskets that won’t snap underwater, and 2) whole marlin sushi rolls. Of course because the most efficient way to make the sushi is to have the workers living on-site under water, and because the baskets are needed to gather their own seaweed in the first place, suddenly the whole scheme becomes economically and environmentally self-justifying! And of course this will be a “free market solution”. ;P

@Bulldust#48: I am astounded by Pitman’s naivety. He’s obviously a True Believer. He seems to believe the only reason people are sceptical of climate “science” is that they are funded by Big Oil out of Houston, Texas. And the new ruling class has put him in charge of our economic future! Get out of the way, Andy. Let people who understand business run our economy. We won’t bugger up your climate. Time to decide whether you’re a scientist we can trust or a zealot looking for us to finance your retirement.

The way I look at it, Abbott will force an election soon, and will win that election. The greens will have the balance of power in the senate, so Abbott will have to work with either the greens or Labor.

That says oh so much about the way you see the world.

There is absolutely no reason that on winning the next election the Tony Abbott will need do anything othjer than enact the repeal mandate the election has given him. The test will squarely on Labor and Greens to show they support democracy rather than totalitarianism when he presents the bill to the house.

In all likelihood the rump of Labor that remains in the House of Reps will do as they have always done and oppose the bill, which will still pass the parliament as I believe we will never again see minority government in this nation. And it is a given that the Greens in the Senate will oppose it, so it will be up to Labor in the Senate to back the mandate of the election result.

Failure of Labor and the Greens to pass the repeal bill will be a clear notice to the electorate that they, Labor and The Greens care nothing for the declared will of the electorate. When Tony Abbott calls a double dissolution due to the willful disregard of the electoral mandate by the Greens and some or all of the Labor members in both houses we will witness an electoral blood letting that will see the greens go the way of the democrats and the ALP (with the handfull of seats in both houses that they save) being granted party status by the goodwill of the coalition alone.

This will be both a great and sad day for this country for it will herald at least a generation of basically one party rule that will be open for abuse, but on the up side will send a clear message that will reverbrate down the years of what the Australian people expect of their elected representatives, and the price for denigrating and ignoring that declared will and lying to achieve high office to the detriment of those you were elected to serve.

Thanks for that, I’ve just re-read my last post and I’ve got to stop relying on the spellcheck function of my VT emulator to pick up my typos. I’ll have to go old school and proof read for myself, bugger…

Tony Abbott refuses to allow Malcolm Turnbull and Simon Crean to attend the state funeral for Margaret Olley:

I’m really glad you showed up Adam Smith, and I’m particularly grateful YOU have raised the issue of Tony Abbott REFUSING to abide by the “conventions”.

You see Adam Smith, the problem is that only a fortnight ago it was YOU who was insisting on this site that “conventions” now took precedence over the written law in the Constitution.

It was YOU who insisted that the PM could TELL (your word Adam Smith – “tell”) even the monarch what to do because that was the “convention” and be damned what the rule book (constitution) had to say on the matter.

And yet now you are spitting chips because Abbott (the leader of the opposition) “refuses” (again – your word Adam Smith – “refuses”) to abide by the “conventions”.

Tell me Adam Smith. How can it be IF the “conventions” overrule the written law, the leader of the opposition can “refuse” to abide by them?

Tell me Adam Smith. If the PM can “tell” (your word) the monarch what to do because that is the “convention”, how come the PM can’t just “tell” Tony Abbott to pull his head in and demand that the pairing “convention” stands?

/sarc OFF.

The truth is, Adam Smith, as you well know, that “conventions” are just dandy for exactly as long as everyone agrees to abide by them.

The moment one party chooses not to, then it’s back to the LAW as written in the constitution and there is stuff-all the PM or anybody else can do about it.

Fact is, Abbott is in no position to force an election until circumstances change dramatically.

Re the current Craig Thomson business. Unless he is forced into bankruptcy in the short term, there is little possibility of a by-election. Court processes dealing with the other malfeasances could be stretched out for many months, possibly until after the next election. A conviction of a crime which carries a sentence of one year’s imprisonment is required to disbar one from being an MP.

If Abbott DID win an election, coalition history tells us he would be safe from internal challenge from anyone. That holds until the coalition’s poll figures go down the dunny. In the term after the election Abbott would face a hostile Senate. If they block too much key legislation, Abbott can then set the groundwork for a Double Dissolution election.

[In the term after the election Abbott would face a hostile Senate. If they block too much key legislation, Abbott can then set the groundwork for a Double Dissolution election.]
This would take at least a year, and probably at least a year and a half.

I’ve written it before, and I’ll write it again. If the ETS legislation passes, no government will ever repeal it.

I note you completely side-stepped your previous now demonstrated fallacies about conventions taking precedence over the written law. But in truth I never expected you to do otherwise.

Slither, slither, slither.

I’ve asked before, but you never answered:

Just how DO you deal with the carpet burns to your nipples?

Slither, slither, slither.

As to the subject at hand: Simon Crean is of the Labor Party and Malcolm Turnbull is allegedly of the Liberal Party. They could both have attended Margaret Olley’s funeral together – even shared a taxi – without making one whit of difference to any vote on the floor (both side down one vote – status unchanged).

The fact that BOTH men chose not to, and instead chose to turn the woman’s funeral into a political point-scoring exercise, speaks volumes for the depths that Australian politics has descended to in recent years.

The fact that you would attempt to use their despicable behaviour to favour one side of of the vermin who now infect our Parliament over the other, simply demonstrates that you are lower and more despicable than both.

The antics of our “politicians” – of both flavours – sickens me. Your behaviour is even more bereft of anything remotely resembling “decency” that it sickens me.

I note you completely side-stepped your previous now demonstrated fallacies about conventions taking precedence over the written law. But in truth I never expected you to do otherwise.

Slither, slither, slither.

I’ve asked before, but you never answered:

Just how DO you deal with the carpet burns to your nipples?

Slither, slither, slither.

As to the subject at hand: Simon Crean is of the Labor Party and Malcolm Turnbull is allegedly of the Liberal Party. They could both have attended Margaret Olley’s funeral together – even shared a taxi – without making one whit of difference to any vote on the floor (both side down one vote – status unchanged).

The fact that BOTH men chose not to, and instead chose to turn the woman’s funeral into a political point-scoring exercise, speaks volumes for the depths that Australian politics has descended to in recent years.

The fact that you would attempt to use their despicable behaviour to favour one side of of the vermin who now infect our Parliament over the other, simply demonstrates that you are lower and more despicable than both.

The antics of our “politicians” – of both flavours – sickens me. Your behaviour is even more bereft of anything remotely resembling “decency” that it sickens me.

Instead of reverting to abuse, you should stick to debating the issues.

There are more than a few here with their own scandals involving their inability to keep their taxes straightened out. And a few sex scandals to go with it. You would think that someone of leadership quality could avoid prostitutes and keep their taxes paid.

We’ve not only redefined deviancy down (as in what constitutes criminal behavior and suitable punishment), we’ve redefined leadership down as well.

We now reap what has been sown for so long. The world is inflamed. Legislatures argue trivia while their countries fall. And China is waiting very watchfully while they pay strict attention to their real national interest.

Thanks for your comment John. But I can point out that CO2 is the same everywhere, and so is 2XCO2. So if 2XCO2 is clustering around 0.7 C or so there is no way it can be “2 – 4.5 C” as you point out is the view of IPCC. If you don’t agree with this I’m happy to entertain citations to the contrary.

The reason why 2XCO2 is around 0.7 C not the higher range is the IPCC models do not include the solar magnetic effects which have now been further proven with the CERN CLOUD experimental results (in Nature, out today). Which are supported by Prof Svensmark’s results at the Uni of Aarhus and Prof Udipi Rao’s recent paper (Prof Rao, a cosmic ray physicist, is probably the most highly regarded scientist in India, with a CV of achievement which would be hard to beat).

Because solar magnetic effects (ie per Butler & Johnston 1996 and many others) cause perhaps 50% of the warming last century (Prof Rao thinks 40%) and the cyclic temperature effects of the PDO another third (the PDO temperature cycle was at bottom in 1900 and near top in 2000 – worth 0.27 C of illusory warming because of the start and end dates) then CO2 only is worth about 1/6th of the warming (lower if you consider UHIE, which is more powerful than the IPCC wants to think – on land anyway).

The IPCC primarily used models back fitting to the 20th C to interpolate a 2XCO2 value but left out 5/6ths of the natural warming processes, so why is their 2XCO2 value 6 times too high? You tell me…

As to Mr Tamino (yes I know his real name, but that is superfluous) you will see his analysis is for the period 1975 to 2010, a period of 35 years. Now as I mentioned above there is this thing called the PDO which has a temperature effect of 0.27 C trough to peak. It has a cycle time of 66 years or so. So 1900 was the bottom of the cycle. And when was the most recent bottom of the cycle? Since 2005 or so was the peak…lessee, half of 66 is 33, 2005 minus 32 is 1972. Wow, ain’t that amazing! And what is the anomaly Mr Tamino is modelling TSI against…why 0.6 C in that time. So he has left out nearly half of the variance by ignoring the cyclic oceanic effect. Which the IPCC likewise ignores. And Mr Tamino also ignores the indirect solar magnetic effects, since we know TSI is too low to account for the warming alone – which is exactly Prof Svensmark’s and Prof Rai’s point. Serial ignorance or purposeful action, again you tell me…

I think Abbott will force an election because sooner or later one government member (perhaps Mr Thompson), will have to resign, and the government will no longer have a majority.

I’m not happy about this. I think the government has been doing a reasonable job, and that a new coalition government will not be an improvement.

Take just one example, plain packaging for cigarettes. This is important legislation, as it will reduce the number of children taking up smoking. A coalition government would most likely not introduce such legislation, being quite comfortable with the idea of leaving teenagers to fend for themselves against the marketing might of the tobacco companies.

Take pokies. Its a great idea that you fund cheap food and drink at social clubs by allowing problem gamblers to ruin their lives. Again, I’m pretty sure the coalition can live with that one, mouthing platitudes, but keeping the money.

In other areas the government has tried to do good things, but has backed down in the face of public opinion. Take the Resource Super Profit tax. A very sound idea, but the usual fear campaign in the media sees it watered down. Now the “two speed” economy is starting to bite, and people are realising that slowing the mining boom down and diverting some of its excessive profits to other areas of the economoy is a good idea.

It is a shame that a government that at least tried to do good things will go.

I think Abbott will force an election because sooner or later one government member (perhaps Mr Thompson), will have to resign, and the government will no longer have a majority.

I doubt this will happen. Even if he was charged with some sort of crime next week, it would probably take a year or more for it to wind through the courts, including all the appeals. And remember, unless he is sentenced to a jail term of at least 1 year, he won’t have to resign from parliament.

And remember, unless he is sentenced to a jail term of at least 1 year, he won’t have to resign from parliament.

Wrong again – you DO make a habit of it, don’t you?

A person only has to be CONVICTED of a crime that carries a POSSIBLE sentence of a year or more in prison to be ineligible to sit in parliament. How long a sentence the person actually gets is irrelevant.

Fraud (for instance) carries a possible penalty of seven, or ten years under NSW law, depending on the actual charges. Therefore someone convicted of fraud under NSW law would be ineligible to sit in parliament even if they were only actually sentenced to a good behaviour period.

Even if he was charged with some sort of crime next week, it would probably take a year or more for it to wind through the courts, including all the appeals.

There is NO provision in the constitution for a person so convicted to remain in parliament pending appeals. They don’t even have to have been sentenced – only convicted – to lose the right to sit in parliament.

It is not the judge’s sentence. It is the penalty prescribed under the offence.

From Section 44.

(ii.) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer:

I agree, the chance of a 1 year or more sentence before 2013 is fairly low.

However you’ve missed an aspect: Mr Thompson may have spent as much as $40,000 of union funds off the card in election expenses. If the AEC starts looking he may have his election overturned. Whereupon there would be a by-election.

The other possibility is that public pressure requires him to pay back the money from the ALP for the court case expenses, or the ATO bites him for tax on them, and he goes out via bankrupcy.

The third option is he looks like a dork and sits on the backbenches for 2 years moping at the unfairness of it all. My understanding of the highly sexed alpha-male species is they think this is a fate worse than death. Should he find himself in this position he might decide to ‘punish’ the ALP for not supporting him enough and resign.

I forgot one. If Mr Thompson has to explain his actions before Parliament, and a finding from an official body (Fair Work, NSW Police) shows he has been er, inaccurate, then he’d be out for misleading Parliament.

SMH has a poll going: Should the PM insist that Craig Thomson explain what happened in parliament?

However you’ve missed an aspect: Mr Thompson may have spent as much as $40,000 of union funds off the card in election expenses. If the AEC starts looking he may have his election overturned. Whereupon there would be a by-election.

The AEC has no role policing unions. The AEC conducts union elections, but it has no role to determining how unions spend money.

I forgot one. If Mr Thompson has to explain his actions before Parliament, and a finding from an official body (Fair Work, NSW Police) shows he has been er, inaccurate, then he’d be out for misleading Parliament.

Only ministers have to resign their portfolio if they misled parliament. There’s nothing that says a backbencher has to resign from parliament for doing the same.

In fact, that’s one of the strange things about this whole scenario. No one has made any claim that Thomson has done anything wrong while he has been in parliament. Most of these allegations are about things he supposedly did 5 years ago.

Adam – re the AEC, my point is that the $40,000 may have been spent for Mr Thomson’s Federal election campaign without declaring it, according to the Courier Mail article. As well as being an unauthorised expense on his union credit card. If an unsuccessful candidate at the 2010 election challenges Mr Thomson’s successful election to Dobell he may have his success overturned. I don’t think it is likely, and I don’t know the ins and outs of the electoral laws. There may be a time limit for example. However my point is that has nothing to do with union elections, all to do with the seat he is currently sitting on, or in. The AEC may not like people using illegal and undeclared donations to help themselves be elected, if the funds were illegal – which the authorities would have to determine.

As to the SMH poll, they’re fun. But I’ll give you this, usually the SMH readership leans to the left, so for it to go 77% against Ms Gillard’s rather strongly defended position it means people are unhappy. Normally SMH polls run like ABC polls, more to the favour of the ALP than against. I think it says people like a bit of ethical and law abiding behaviour from their pollies rather than the opposite.

Isn’t this website about following evidence? If so, webpolls don’t count as valid evidence.

Should you wish to go into evidence of global warming etc, I am always at your service. You may wish to read and check out the links for my posts at #35 and #87. Let me know if you object to any of their contents. I give due to John that he at least added a link from Tamino’s website though it was a pretty one dimensional post of Tamino’s, which disappoints me.

Bruce all candidates have to declare where donations came from? It’s law. Now if the Union declared he could use that money (doubtful) and he declared it correctly then they (AEC) can’t interfere. But the ALP can fund campaign expenses, that’s why it is hard for Independents first time around, they have to foot the bill themselves.

But I think by now there are 4 authorities involved. The NSW ALP for giving or loaning Thomson money to bail him out of paying legal fees that would have bankrupted him. (Seriously – he shouldn’t have brought on the defamation case not knowing how expensive they are, and his resources are far less than a big media giant). He stopped the case when it looked like he would lose and probably made to pay both his and their lawyers. Robertson has stated he knew nothing about paying the $90k from ALP Funds. NSW ALP have to answer this too.

The Australian Taxation Office who will be examining his taxation as this $90,000 can be construed as income. Most probably involving the ALP NSW too.

The Health Services Union, who were looking into their books during the years he was secretary already before all this blew up. Their auditors would not clear them, and when asked if they would withhold any information, or this could bring the government down, they said we are acting for our members not the ALP. And if someone wants to spend money on prostitutes then they can but not ours. That seems already damning.

The NSW Police but should they find grounds for prosecution if will be on behalf of the Union I would suggest.

But the ones to look out for is the ATO, they act quickly I can tell you.

If Thomson wants to appear innocent like Greiner did and resign as Tony Windsor said, Greiner was found out eventually to be not guilty and he was reluctant to comment until he is found guilty.

If charges are laid, if it is fraud they would have strong grounds to proceed and as I have said, that most probably Thomson will be granted bail and have to surrender his passport. Maybe the ALP will give him bail moneys to guarantee he will appear when required. LOL

I can’t see how Gillard can compare this member to the lady senator on
a charge of shop lifting. Using a unions money inappropriately and being bailed out by a political party is hardly in the same league.

How about the messages left on ALP back benches seats that the Coalition picked up warning them to say that the member of Dobell was
a hard working representative for his constituents.

They are worried and I can’t see Thomson staying put, he will get flack by his party, they will be blaming him for their future losses
in an election. Not the carbon tax? LOL

At least Wilkie wants Thomson to explain to parliament he is protected by parliamentary privilege. But he will say, I have taken legal advice that I make no comment at this stage.

It’s a terrible blow to the ALP at this stage of the proceedings, and it will be another nail in their coffin at the next election when ever that will arrive. Sooner the better. But the independents won’t
welcome it either, as they have lost a lot of support in their electorates for supporting labor.

Ah Postscript: The ATO have also stated, money paid for prostitutes and
entertainment, air fares etc., are private expenditures and not fair dinkum expenses incurred in the role of his employment by the UNION, who didn’t authorise them.

Should you wish to go into evidence of global warming etc, I am always at your service. You may wish to read and check out the links for my posts at #35 and #87. Let me know if you object to any of their contents. I give due to John that he at least added a link from Tamino’s website though it was a pretty one dimensional post of Tamino’s, which disappoints me.

And apologies to Mr Thomson, I was misspelling his name before.

This has nothing to do with the accuracy of webpolls.

I simply pointed out that polls that are self selecting, and aren’t randomised, and aren’t a representative sample of a population are ALL flawed, and thus their results shouldn’t be used as evidence when constructing an argument.

Bruce all candidates have to declare where donations came from? It’s law.

Only large donations… if I remember rightly John Howard substantially increased the threshold. The ALP under Kim Beazley cried that it was corrupt, but they haven’t rushed to fix the problem now they are in a position to do so, funny that.

I may be wrong, but I’m told that the credit card expenses in question happened a few years back, before Thompson stood as a candidate.

The ATO have also stated, money paid for prostitutes and entertainment, air fares etc., are private expenditures and not fair dinkum expenses…

Lots of businesses have discovered the hard way just how tight the ATO get when it comes to expense deductions, so sad to see it happen to a union, welcome to equality. If the union admits that they did authorize any of this then they open themselves up to tax fraud (remember Keating’s Fringe Benefits Tax?) and if they didn’t authorize it, then Mr Thompson would have been stealing someone else’s money (that’s a bad thing, even when socialists do it).

and thus their results shouldn’t be used as evidence when constructing an argument

Adam – on the surface you are right, webpolls are unreliable. I don’t think exactly 77% of the whole electorate want Ms Gillard to make Mr Thomson explain his actions.

But with all data there is a message. The message may be that the data is completely random. Or it may be that 20,000 purposely clicked the opposite button from what their opinion really is.

I look at webpolls as a window into how people think (I’m also a data tragic, as you’ll know if you’ve frequented Jo’s blog). In this case I know from long observation that SMH readers tend to the left of the political spectrum, and when a webpoll is offered they will vote to the left. This time however about 20,000 readers took the trouble to vote against the ALP line, which suggests a conflict between their left leaning instincts and their law and order instincts. The latter won out. That is what the data says to me.

This brings me to my comment to you about AGW data. The same principle exists: you should look at ALL of the data and make a judgement based on the whole of it. We are seeing already that the MSM and the empire of CAGW is instinctively rejecting the Svensmark hypothesis despite it being rather strongly supported by the CERN CLOUD results released yesterday. That is a tactic which runs under the heading ‘spin’. But the ordinary voters, who by default are distrustful of journalists and politicians, will not necessarily accept this spin. The phrase ‘you shouldn’t always believe everything you read in the newspaper’ has been around since the things were invented. I expect this finding will further reduce the pro carbon tax vote in future elections – and the ALP should ignore such science at their peril. How low can the ALP primary vote go?

Only large donations… if I remember rightly John Howard substantially increased the threshold. The ALP under Kim Beazley cried that it was corrupt, but they haven’t rushed to fix the problem now they are in a position to do so, funny that.

Yes Howard increased the threshold from $1500 to $10000. In the previous parliament Labor did pass a bill through the House on two occasions to make the level $1000, but it was blocked in the Senate with Steve Fielding the deciding vote.

[Adam – on the surface you are right, webpolls are unreliable. I don’t think exactly 77% of the whole electorate want Ms Gillard to make Mr Thomson explain his actions.]
It could be any number because webpolls are self selecting, so they are useless.

I doubt most Australians know who Thomson is, but I concede is simply my guess, which is at least as good as a webpoll.

I look at webpolls as a window into how people think (I’m also a data tragic, as you’ll know if you’ve frequented Jo’s blog).

Well that is pointless, because webpolls don’t tell you want the community thinks at all, because there’s no way to determine if they are representative of the populace at large. Webpolls can only be accurate by shear fluke, rather than by design.

Adam – all polls are biassed. Newspoll is biassed, Neilsen etc because they ring up landlines (as I understand it). People are moving away from landlines to mobile only households. That doesn’t stop the pollers from polling – they use statistical methods to correct.

But you misunderstand my point. A webpoll measures the opinion of the people who clicked on the webpoll. You can then decide what their motivation is, and compare it to the demographic that reads the SMH, and the one which responded to previous SMH webpolls. That is all statistical data. Just data. I’ve been doing statistical analysis of data for something like thirty years, this is just more data. That doesn’t mean my interpretation is right, but nor is your blanket opinion that the things are meaningless. They’re very meaningful, it may be though that us poor humans might not be so good at interpreting that meaning.

Adam – all polls are biassed. Newspoll is biassed, Neilsen etc because they ring up landlines (as I understand it). People are moving away from landlines to mobile only households. That doesn’t stop the pollers from polling – they use statistical methods to correct.

Well you have just explained why webpolls are useless!

They don’t use any statistical weighting at all! They just show the responses from people willing to do the poll, while MANY people use the internet every day, many others don’t.

But you misunderstand my point. A webpoll measures the opinion of the people who clicked on the webpoll.

Again! Thank you very much for supporting my argument! Measuring the opinion of who did the poll is USELESS for making arguments about public opinion as a whole. They should NOT be refereed to as evidence about public opinion.

Yes I agree with you, the stakes are very high. As De La Soul once said:

The instamatic focal point bringing damage to your boroughs
Be some brothers from the east with some beats that be thorough
Got the solar gravitation so I’m bound to pull it
I gets down like brothers are found ducking from bullets
Gun control means using both hands in my land
Where it’s all about the cautious livin’
Migrating to a higher form of consequence, compliments
Of strugglin’, that shouldn’t be notable,
Man every word I say should be a hip hop quotable.

Thomson could be telling the truth although I doubt it. What I find strange is that he now says he has proof with travel and a witness he wasn’t there on the days he allegedly signed and authorised the payments to this escort agency.

If this is so, then why did he drop the defamation case, was he covering for others involved at the time? And it would be logical as I believe labor people urged him to drop it and pay his $90 legal fees. If he had proof then he would have got more than $90k in damages. Or he could be guilty as hell of course and this just another rouse to save time and face?

There’s more than meets the eye here. Newspolls in one paper today asked if he should resign, guess over 80% responded yes.

Now the stat dec that Julia Gillard when working for a firm employed by the AWU opened bank accounts and her then partner Wilson started to lobby contractors getting them to join the union and pay so many fees then deposited them in these accounts. There was hundred of thousands that disappeared down a black hole. She didn’t do anything fraudulent and ended the relationship. See the Stat dec, or part of on the Andrew Bolt blog. But I hope this isn’t another Grench ploy that Malcolm Turncoat tried to pull against Rudd.

Or he could be guilty as hell of course and this just another rouse to save time and face?

It’s getting worse and worse. Now there are reports that significant financial records from the union are missing… you have to wonder how that can even happen with a large organisation in this day and age. On top of that, it would seem that Thomson actually continued using the union card after he became a member of parliament. Thus we have money going directly from union coffers to a sitting MP… pretty much a textbook case of a conflict of interests.